I checked france homicide rate the other day and my mind was blown away: there were "only" 825 murders last year, over a population of 67 million. I couldn't believe it was so low, and below the treshold of a thousand. Car wrecks killed and still kill 3500 people annually, 4 times more. Unbelievable.

Off topic, but there are lower ones: check Spain or Austria for example (292 in 2016 for a 46.5M population = 6.3 per million (or the same as the US rate only for mass shootings, per the above statistics), or 4.7 per million in Austria, versus the 12.3 per million for France)

But otherwise, what do shootings have to do with anything? Life is relatively safe. 1931 deaths out of >300 millions is very little.

It speaks to perception and actual levels of risk.

Quote from: meekGee

SS2 hasn't performed well to date in terms of safety (one fatal accident in a handful of powered flights) and there are also objective safety concerns just looking at the design - and no way to test it unmanned.

Isn't that the point of a flight test programme? To find problems, possibly fatal problems, and correct them before a design enters service?

I checked france homicide rate the other day and my mind was blown away: there were "only" 825 murders last year, over a population of 67 million. I couldn't believe it was so low, and below the treshold of a thousand. Car wrecks killed and still kill 3500 people annually, 4 times more. Unbelievable.

I checked france homicide rate the other day and my mind was blown away: there were "only" 825 murders last year, over a population of 67 million. I couldn't believe it was so low, and below the treshold of a thousand. Car wrecks killed and still kill 3500 people annually, 4 times more. Unbelievable.

Americans will say that the US is much bigger than France (about 4.85x by population) so of course there would be more murders in proportion.

Note that "mass shootings" are a small sub set of all US gunshot injuries and deaths.

My point was the how much risk people are prepared to accept already, without really thinking about it.

The risks aren't comparable, yet. If you live in the US for a year, you have about a 1 in 20,000 chance of getting murdered. If you drive a car in the US for a year, you have about a 1 in 10,000 chance of dying in a car crash.

If you take a 20 minute flight on SS2, you have something like a 1 in 10 chance of dying in a crash, based on flight history. That's about a million times riskier.

If it was fully automated they could have already flown it to space and back dozens of times un-crewed for tests that would have generated reams of data...

I doubt it. During the downtime between most flights they seem to be making aerodynamic or structural changes based on previous test data, in addition to adding hardware required for the next test flight. I donít see how making the vehicle unmanned would make those changes go any faster. Adding automation also increases the complexity of the vehicle, which would likely make the flight test process take longer. They would have to debug an advanced flight automation system in addition to debugging a mach 3 spacecraft, which is already hard enough. Iím not saying that all of the downtime between flights isn't human related, but I think it is unfair to say that just making it fully automated would automagically fix everything.

If it was fully automated they could have already flown it to space and back dozens of times un-crewed for tests that would have generated reams of data...

I doubt it. During the downtime between most flights they seem to be making aerodynamic or structural changes based on previous test data, in addition to adding hardware required for the next test flight. I donít see how making the vehicle unmanned would make those changes go any faster. Adding automation also increases the complexity of the vehicle, which would likely make the flight test process take longer. They would have to debug an advanced flight automation system in addition to debugging a mach 3 spacecraft, which is already hard enough. Iím not saying that all of the downtime between flights isn't human related, but I think it is unfair to say that just making it fully automated would automagically fix everything.

Perhaps, but I think the point is that with a pilot in the loop they are forced to develop it the "NASA way" (we can't afford to make any mistakes) but without the "NASA budget". Making it able to fly without crew would add some up front cost, but would simplify testing. (for example you can decouple environmental or human comfort feature testing from flight testing)

It also begs the question whether or not it is even desirable in this century to have a craft that requires two pilots. It seems like a rather old fashioned idea in the 21st century. My prediction: SS2 will be the last spacecraft developed this way, and it will provide multiple lessons for future entrants in what *not* to do. But I still hope to see them fly it.

If it was fully automated they could have already flown it to space and back dozens of times un-crewed for tests that would have generated reams of data...

I doubt it. During the downtime between most flights they seem to be making aerodynamic or structural changes based on previous test data, in addition to adding hardware required for the next test flight. I donít see how making the vehicle unmanned would make those changes go any faster. Adding automation also increases the complexity of the vehicle, which would likely make the flight test process take longer. They would have to debug an advanced flight automation system in addition to debugging a mach 3 spacecraft, which is already hard enough. Iím not saying that all of the downtime between flights isn't human related, but I think it is unfair to say that just making it fully automated would automagically fix everything.

Perhaps, but I think the point is that with a pilot in the loop they are forced to develop it the "NASA way" (we can't afford to make any mistakes) but without the "NASA budget". Making it able to fly without crew would add some up front cost, but would simplify testing. (for example you can decouple environmental or human comfort feature testing from flight testing)

It also begs the question whether or not it is even desirable in this century to have a craft that requires two pilots. It seems like a rather old fashioned idea in the 21st century. My prediction: SS2 will be the last spacecraft developed this way, and it will provide multiple lessons for future entrants in what *not* to do. But I still hope to see them fly it.

What an odd argument. The B-21 which will be the most heavily automated aircraft so far ever built when flying in manned mode is still intended to have two pilots. There is still something to be said for having two pilots and two sets of eyes, two human brains for certain key stages of operation.

What an odd argument. The B-21 which will be the most heavily automated aircraft so far ever built when flying in manned mode is still intended to have two pilots. There is still something to be said for having two pilots and two sets of eyes, two human brains for certain key stages of operation.

Apples to oranges. The humans aren't on board the B-21 to fly from A to B on a well planned and steady course, they're there to deal with the realities of combat airspace and to drop the nuclear bombs.

The purpose of this "VG Spaceliner" is to transport the passengers on a pleasure-ride to the boundary of space in safest most efficient manor that this design will allow. The flight profile of suborbital vehicles is well understood and testing from the onset should have been un-crewed for the specifics of this design... Only after sufficient evaluation has been done should pilots be incorporated to "monitor" the systems and only intervene "if" necessary for regular scheduled passenger flight safety after they have been qualified... The purpose of SS2 is not to demonstrate the "hand-flying skills" of pilots on board which would best left to aerobatic demonstrations and competitions... This is coming to you from a pilot's perspective, "leave the ego on the ground"...

If it was fully automated they could have already flown it to space and back dozens of times un-crewed for tests that would have generated reams of data...

I doubt it. During the downtime between most flights they seem to be making aerodynamic or structural changes based on previous test data, in addition to adding hardware required for the next test flight. I donít see how making the vehicle unmanned would make those changes go any faster. Adding automation also increases the complexity of the vehicle, which would likely make the flight test process take longer. They would have to debug an advanced flight automation system in addition to debugging a mach 3 spacecraft, which is already hard enough. Iím not saying that all of the downtime between flights isn't human related, but I think it is unfair to say that just making it fully automated would automagically fix everything.

Perhaps, but I think the point is that with a pilot in the loop they are forced to develop it the "NASA way" (we can't afford to make any mistakes) but without the "NASA budget". Making it able to fly without crew would add some up front cost, but would simplify testing. (for example you can decouple environmental or human comfort feature testing from flight testing)

It also begs the question whether or not it is even desirable in this century to have a craft that requires two pilots. It seems like a rather old fashioned idea in the 21st century. My prediction: SS2 will be the last spacecraft developed this way, and it will provide multiple lessons for future entrants in what *not* to do. But I still hope to see them fly it.

I think they would have to develop it ďthe NASA wayĒ in either case. They arenít rolling these off an assembly line and probably canít afford (in terms of money and time) to rush through testing while losing a bunch of vehicles in the process. Trial-and-erroring your way to victory doesnít work if you have a small budget and no revenue from test flights.

I also donít know if I agree that making it automated would simplify testing. Computers are only as smart as we program them to be, so a lot more analysis would and testing would need to be done to ensure that the computers wonít get confused and plow the vehicle into the ground (which also makes it harder to fly from a regulatory standpoint, because that makes the FAA a LOT twitchier). Automating it would also make it heavier (and therefore bigger and more expensive) because of the added actuators and power systems for the actuators.

While I wish them luck, I do agree with you that SS2 will be a lesson in how not to do things. I think it will be a ďradical vehicle configuration changes and hybrids are badĒ lesson and not a ďpilots are badĒ lesson (although I am a pilot, so I may be biased).

If it was fully automated they could have already flown it to space and back dozens of times un-crewed for tests that would have generated reams of data...

I doubt it. During the downtime between most flights they seem to be making aerodynamic or structural changes based on previous test data, in addition to adding hardware required for the next test flight. I donít see how making the vehicle unmanned would make those changes go any faster. Adding automation also increases the complexity of the vehicle, which would likely make the flight test process take longer. They would have to debug an advanced flight automation system in addition to debugging a mach 3 spacecraft, which is already hard enough. Iím not saying that all of the downtime between flights isn't human related, but I think it is unfair to say that just making it fully automated would automagically fix everything.

Perhaps, but I think the point is that with a pilot in the loop they are forced to develop it the "NASA way" (we can't afford to make any mistakes) but without the "NASA budget". Making it able to fly without crew would add some up front cost, but would simplify testing. (for example you can decouple environmental or human comfort feature testing from flight testing)

It also begs the question whether or not it is even desirable in this century to have a craft that requires two pilots. It seems like a rather old fashioned idea in the 21st century. My prediction: SS2 will be the last spacecraft developed this way, and it will provide multiple lessons for future entrants in what *not* to do. But I still hope to see them fly it.

Ironic, given how much effort they invested in branding the "New Space" moniker...

It's 2018 for heavens sake. Pilots are a liability. A pilot pulled the lever that destroyed the previous test vehicle. The root cause of that tragedy was choosing to have pilots in the first place.

But the whole thing was designed over 10 years ago...

Also isn't it fundamentally more difficult to automate an airplane then a rocket? Rockets have been flying automatically since the 1960s, but even today most airplane takeoff/landing still require a pilot.